Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the specific return contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which helps the agent understand what to expect. It does not discuss potential latency or side effects, but none are indicated for a read-only state query.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and concisely enumerates the output components. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete and self-sufficient, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema shows an empty properties object. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', listing concrete elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like authenticate or show_version, which serve different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by stating exactly what information the tool returns, implicitly indicating it should be used when an overview of the toolkit's connections and tool counts is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the uniqueness of the tool among siblings makes this omission minor.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.